[un/loquer] Petition to the United Nations Calling for a Moratorium on Aerial Spraying in Colombia in Compliance with International Law and Conventions

Paula Vélez pvelezbr en gmail.com
Vie Ene 25 21:11:25 UTC 2013


Hola LabsurLab, Unloquer, K0lab,

Me parece importante este mensaje que les reenvío aquí. Es para mandar una
petición a las Naciones Unidas en la que se exija detener las fumigaciones
aéreas en Colombia. Es un tema urgente para protejer la biodiversidad en
las selvas del tropico de cancer y tropico de capricornio en territorio
colombiano, américa del sur. Está muy bien escrito y argumentado. Esperando
que sirva para algo, convencida que la voz de mucha gente todavía puede
representar el cambio, distribuyanlo!

Me envió Johnatan Echeverri Zuluaga. Phd, profesor de antropología de la
Universidad de Antioquia.

Paula


  To sign the petition please go to:
http://www.wola.org/highlight/petition_to_the_un_for_a_moratorium_on_aerial_spraying_in_colombia



Petition to the United Nations Calling for a Moratorium on Aerial Spraying
in Colombia in Compliance with International Law and Conventions



Bogotá, December 4th 2012



His Excellency Ban Ki-moon

Secretary-General of the United Nations

New York





REF.: Aerial spraying to eradicate crops used for illicit purposes in
Colombia. In view of the Colombian government’s failure to comply with the
International Conventions and Treaties subscribed and, considering the
health hazards, IHL and Human Rights violations as well as the
environmental risks resulting from the aerial spraying of defoliants and
intensive and indiscriminate use of agroprecursors,  we the undersigned
citizens and Social, Peace, Environmental, Human Rights, Harm Reduction and
Drug-Policy Reform Movements and Organizations here request that the United
Nations mediate on our behalf in Colombia in order to ensure that:



1.       The attention of the Santos Government be called to its obligation
to declare an immediate moratorium on fumigation until the pertinent and
autonomous humanitarian, epidemiological, environmental, social and
economic studies addressing the impacts of aerial spraying itself are
carried out and reveal their findings.



2.      The highly-questionable aerial spraying eradication measure be
removed from the 2012 Drug Bill to be debated by the Colombian Congress in
March 2013 since this measure contravenes existing legislation.



3.      The Santos government apply stricter controls to the production,
importation and sale of agrochemical products since these are used as
agroprecursors to expand and increase the productivity of drug crops.

Attached letter documenting the reasons for this petition:



Dear Mr. Secretary-General:



We are writing you out of humanitarian considerations and in the face of
the numerous complaints regarding the health hazards, environmental-impact,
Human Rights and International Humanitarian Law violations and the
Colombian State’s failure to comply with the Nation’s 1991 Political
Constitution and its reservations [1] with regard to the 1988 Vienna
Convention against Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic
Substances. We therefore appeal to you, and through your good offices to
the International Community and international bodies in charge of
protecting Human Rights, and dealing with the causes of internal refugees,
displaced populations, environmental protection and limitations to the use
of chemical weapons, to intervene before the governments of Colombia and
the United States requesting, demanding, that they comply with the
Treaties, Conventions and Protocols to which their States are parties.



One of Colombia’s reservations to the Vienna Convention is expressed by the
Constitutional Court Ruling No. C-176/94 as follows: “...the Colombian
State should reserve itself the right to assess the ecological impact of
drug control policies since persecuting the narcotics traffic cannot be
translated into a disregard of the Colombian State’s obligation to protect
the environment, not only for present generations but for future
generations as well.” [2] This ruling clearly orders the Colombian
governments to assess the repercussions of hazardous antinarcotics
measures. It also reaffirms the Constitutional Principle according to which
duly ratified Environmental, Human Rights, IHL, ENMOD and CWC international
treaties prevail over domestic policies and measures.



The United Nations, the European Union as well as the Colombian[3] and
United States Congresses[4] have on various occasions expressed their
apprehension regarding the negative effects of the Aerial Eradication
Program with defoliants. Nevertheless, the Colombian governments, under the
insistence of the United States and with its endorsement, have persisted in
applying a policy which is clearly hazardous and shown to be ineffective
for the eradication purposes proposed.[5]On his Mission to Ecuador in May
2007, Paul Hunt, the UN Special Rapporteur on the Right to the Highest
Attainable Standard of Health found and informed that: "There is credible,
reliable evidence that the aerial spraying of glyphosate along the
Colombia-Ecuador border damages the physical health of people living in
Ecuador. There is also credible, reliable evidence that the aerial spraying
damages their mental health. Military helicopters sometimes accompany the
aerial spraying and the entire experience can be terrifying, especially for
children.”[6] The UNODC itself clearly states that: “UNODC neither
participates nor supervises aerial spraying activities”.[7] The European
Union has been warning Colombia for years: “..the European Union has had
the opportunity to express its position to Colombian authorities, and in
particular to express doubts about the effectiveness of the measure. ...
The EU has also pointed out to Colombian authorities the danger of a
negative impact of the aerial spraying on past and future EU cooperation
projects.”[8] It has also recently reaffirmed the need to carry out
independent —of US and Colombian authorities— monitoring of fumigation
under UN and PAHO supervision.



Colombia is currently the only country in the world that sprays from the
air potent chemical mixtures as State policy and as a war measure.
Fumigation measures were first applied in Colombia in 1978 in accordance
with US persuasion that the Drug War could be waged by attacking crops
through the use of chemicals outside of the US. The US’s proactive role in
fumigation in Colombia has been thoroughly acknowledged by, among others,
its own official documents.[9] The first fumigations in Colombia were
carried out by experimenting with highly dangerous chemicals, among others,
Paraquat. Despite the fact that information according to which “the
spraying of marijuana with paraquat is likely to cause serious harm to the
health of persons who may consume the sprayed marijuana” [10]conveyed in
1979 by Health Education and Welfare (HEW) Secretary, Joseph Califano, led
to abandonment of US aerial spraying in Mexico, this did not stop the US
from making aerial spraying of Parquat in Colombia a Drug War condition.
The aerial use of the pulmonary toxin Paraquat is currently banned
world-wide. Colombia and the US have experimented with a series of
chemicals. According to a 1996 Commission on Narcotics Drugs (CND) report:
“Glyphosate has been applied to all three plants, and 2,4-D [component of
Agent Orange, out of text] to opium poppy, both in the form of liquid
sprays. For coca bush, tebuthiuron and hexazinone, which are granular and
applied by aerial distribution, have been used, and for cannabis plant, the
liquid spray 2 ,4 ,5 ,7 - tetrabromofluorescein, known as Eosine Yellowish,
although the latter can cause some browning of leaves of adjacent
vegetation.”[11]



According to the scarce public-official information available, the chemical
used since 1984 is Glyphosate (Monsanto’s Roundup Ultra) the toxic
surfactant POEA compounded by the coadjuvants Cosmo-Flux 411F and CosmoInD
used to render four times more potent the corrosive effect of Roundup. Yet
there persists a reasonable doubt as to what we are being fumigated with.
In 1988, Eli Lilly refused to let its herbicide, tebuthiuron be used for
coca spraying stating that it had not been tested in tropical environments
and it feared all sorts of law suits. Nevertheless, there are references to
the fact that the highly dangerous tebuthiuron has been used on Colombians.
A FOIA of a July 1997 CIA document reveals that, as per USDA
experimentation in Peru and Panamá, Colombia had acquiesced to the “pilot
program for the use of the granular herbicide tebuthiuron in the
eradication of coca”. [12]



Apparently, another chemical experimented with is Imazapyr, which poses
high risks to rare and endangered plants.[13] Proof of the total lack of
transparency regarding the chemicals themselves and the fact that, despite
their denial, the chemicals fumigated by the United States and Colombian
government affect the nation’s water sources and food crops, is a recent
State Council ruling. In January 2012 the Colombian State Council condemned
the Nation, the Defense Ministry and National Police for damages to staple
food crops and water sources and farm animals fumigated with Gramaxone
(Paraquat) in 1997.[14] In the transboundary pollution and human-harm claim
Ecuador vs. Colombia at the International Court of Justice (ICJ), the
Colombian government refused to disclose the exact chemical makeup of its
fumigation mixture. According to studies carried out in 2001 by the
agronomist, biologist and chemical expert Elsa Nivia, the glyphosate
concentration in the formula being used in Colombia is 26 times more potent
than that allowed and used anywhere else. [15]



At present, December 2012, public controversy between the US and Colombian
Police brings to light the fact that what counts —that which is certified
by the US— is that the Glyphosate fumigated on Colombians should be
Monsanto at 12 liters/ha and not a generic Chinese brand. [16] The US
defends the use of their brand of Glyphosate and sustains that their
product is "less toxic than table salt and aspirin”[17] and, the US
government’s private Dyncorp aerial spraying contractors, certify that
fields are not sprayed when people are present, Pictures taken during
fumigation operations show this to be false. International organizations
reveal that local communities are not forewarned and much less consulted,
in clear violation of the ILO Convention No. 169 as substantiated by
several Constitutional Court Rulings.[18] Scientists warn the use of any
agrochemical will make farmers more dependent on this particular agrotoxin.
In soils saturated with this particular pesticide, there will most probably
be a need to cultivate crops resistant to this product which in this case
are Glyphosate-incorporated GMOs, for which the 108,000 hectares already
planted in Colombia are clearing the way. Studies also indicate the risk of
transgene flow to other plants, thus endangering Colombia’s biodiversity.



The Colombian and US governments justify fumigation in Colombia with the
argument that the narcotics traffic uses polluting precursors and growers
use fertilizers and herbicides; suggesting that two wrongs make a
right.[19] There is literature to suggest that (any brand) glyphosate used
for agricultural purposes can cause chronic health effects and birth
defects when administered at high doses over prolonged periods.[20] In
Colombia, where the same field may be sprayed up to four or more times and
millions of hectares have been sprayed for over three decades this risk
seems extremely high. Glyphosate is sprayed indiscriminately over vast
areas all over the country and has been proven to have killed non-targeted
vegetation. It has inevitably thus destroyed endangered species, and fish
and aquatic invertebrates are highly sensitive to glyphosate and its
formulations. Findings by Danish researchers on the fact that Glyphosate is
washed down into the upper ground water and not, as previously believed,
that bacteria in the soil broke down the glyphosate before it reached the
ground water, led the Danish government to ban the use of glyphosate in
2003[21]. In Germany, a 2012 university study found significant
concentrations of glyphosate in the urine samples of city dwellers with
concentrations of glyphosate at 5 to 20 times the limit for drinking
water.[22] Health reports in eastern Venezuela in 2009 indicate that the
higher incidence of birth defects in this region, comparable only to those
in Colombia, might be due to the toxic chemicals coming in rivers that pass
through Colombia.[23]



Although Colombian peasants and indigenous peoples consistently
complain[24] not only of water pollution, cattle poisoning, the loss of
food crops, abortions and birth defects in both humans and animals after
fumigation operations, but also of skin rashes, respiratory problems,
diarrhea, decreased weight gain in infants, nasal discharge and digestive
disorders, among others, the fact is that, after 34-years of non-stop
aerial spraying, no one really knows the mixtures, formulas, concentration,
and volumes of the chemicals sprayed on our peoples, territories and water
sources. As concerns the period from 1978 to 1995, apart from the prior and
latter warnings issued by the National Health Institute[25], the National
Resources Institute[26], the Office of the Ombudsman[27] and numerous
social and environmental organizations, there is practically no available
official information on where and what we were sprayed with. As to the
extension of fumigation, UNODC figures reveal that only during the last
sixteen years, between 1995 and 2011, the United States and Colombia
sprayed more than 1,652,840 hectares[28] out of the 114 million hectares
that make up the territory of a total of 48 million Colombians.



In spite of unceasing scientific warnings, the Colombian government
persists in this failed measure despite the fact that the only studies that
support fumigation were carried out in 2005 and 2009[29], (only 27 and 31
years after the first sprayings) and were done by the Inter-American Drug
Abuse Commission (CICAD, Spanish acronym) whose sole role is to counter, by
any and all means, the abuse of drugs by 15 to 39 million individuals out
of the 230 million voluntary drug users world-wide. CICAD researcher Keith
Salomon’s statement in 2005 that the situation, the exposure, is
“considerably below thresholds of concern”[30] added to his 2009 assertion,
as informed by the US Embassy, that “Glyphosate spraying for coca control
in Colombia poses negligible risk to humans and the environment”, [31] is
far from consistent with what Colombians live and suffer on a daily basis.
What’s even more horrifying is Solomon’s announcement of the possibility of
further human experimentation: “Should the glyphosate product require
changing, Roundup Biactive may be considered. Should the adjuvant require
changing, then on the basis of this research, Silwet L-77 and Mixture B
would be good candidates for further evaluation”.[32] This, added to the
United States Department of Agriculture Agricultural Research Service
2009-2014 study at DNA Fingerprinting of Coca Leaves to Establish Coca
Genotypes in Colombia, is a justified source of concern for Colombia.[33]



Aerial spraying is one of the main causes of criminal forced internal
displacement in Colombia[34] and the ensuing dispossession of small-peasant
lands by the armed groups[35] serving large narco landowners. It
strengthens the drug traffic and the armed control it exerts over small
crop growers who have thus been abandoned and persecuted by the State.
Fumigation is a Drug War measure which, in clear violation of IHL, is
directed against unarmed peasants who are in no way part of the
hostilities. It aggravates the existing vulnerabilities of the Colombian
peasantry at large and fuels Colombia’s internal strife. Small-crop growers
are not a part of the narcotics traffic. The peasants that cultivate these
crops do so out of need in a country where social injustice is comparable
to that of Haiti and Angola. According to the UNODC, the average size of
coca fields in 2011 is 0.67 has. The average net income per hectare of coca
for a grower is equivalent to US$294 per month.[36] Thus, a peasant family
of 4 lives on less than USD $200/month which is even less than the legal
minimum wage in Colombia. And yet they are persecuted as part of the drug
traffic.



UNODC surveys inform that cutbacks on the use of agrochemicals, those same
chemicals used by the government with the stated intention of eradicating,
contribute to reducing crop productivity. The agroprecursors used by the
Colombian government as well as those used by crop growers are toxic, as
proven by past and recent studies such as those on GMOs and Glyphosate
carried out by Caen University of Professor Séralini [Tous Cobayes?
2012].[37] Not only have the US and Colombian governments paid no heed to
scientific and social warnings but, in line with the illegitimacy of this
measure, when local communities protest, they are accused of being allied
with the guerilla forces and narcotics traffic[38] and, when they complain
of the health and environmental damages suffered, the entity who receives
and decides on the complaints (only receivable since 2001) is the same
entity that fumigates: “The National Drugs Directorate (DNE) and the
Anti-narcotics Department of the National Police are the authorities in
charge of receiving and processing the claims lodged” [Res. 017 2001][39]



Coca, marihuana and poppy do not just grow organically anywhere. They
thrive and expand with the use of fertilizers and herbicides. Totally
disregarding that the intensive and indiscriminate use of agroprecursors is
instrumental to the establishment and expansion of these crops, the 2007
Agricultural Ministry’s “Basis for the Design of an Agrochemical Price
Policy”, limits itself to making sure that the prices of the agroprecursor
market are kept as competitive and low as possible.[40] Juan Manuel
Santos’s Government, instead of reducing to a minimum the Value Added Taxes
(VAT) on chemical fertilizers and herbicides (as it recently did with the
December 2012 Tax Reform), should consider the increased-productivity and
expanding effect that these agroprecursors have had to the detriment of the
fight against drug trafficking. The first fumigations in Colombia were
carried out with the aim of chemically eradicating 19,000 has of
marihuana[41] in a UNESCO Biosphere Reserve [designated 1979] when coca in
Colombia was limited to Indigenous religious and eating habits and poppy
was but a flower. Today, after having spilled millions and millions of
liters of chemical mixtures the length and breadth of Colombia’s national
territory, there are 64,000 has de coca, 338 has of poppy and an
unestimated number of hectares of marijuana. Questions may reasonably be
raised on the role played by aerial spraying, as well as poverty and the
lack of voluntary eradication alternatives, in the expansion of crops used
for illicit purposes in Colombia.



As pointed out by Colombian Courts and social and local community
proposals, the Colombian government has the obligation to value its legacy
of one of the Planet’s most biodiverse and fragile ecosystems by
undertaking sustainable and productive voluntary eradication strategies of
crops used for illicit purposes. It should consider the possibility of
taking advantage of the medical, nutritional and industrial uses of the
Coca Leaf in compliance with the Constitutional Court’s consideration that
“the coca leaf could have legal alternative commercial uses which could
precisely serve to contain the expansion of the narcotics traffic”.
Attempts at limiting the sale of the coca products produced by the
Indigenous communities to their own territories, as the 2012 Drug Bill[42]
pretends to ordain and as the National Drug Office (DNE)[43] , in response
to foreign intervention, has attempted to impose, is not only
counterproductive and opposed to common sense, but also clearly in
violation of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous
Peoples which protects “their right to development in accordance with their
own needs and interests”.



Throughout these 34 years, aerial spraying has been applied and sanctioned
by Administrative Regulations and environmental norms that are basically
passed after the fact. This year, however, the Colombian government drafted
the 2012 Drug Bill[44] which proposes making aerial spraying for crop
eradication a law. Juan Manuel Santos´s Government should learn from past
mistakes and abstain from incorporating aerial spraying measures in the new
Drug Bill. It should declare a moratorium on fumigation until it has been
thoroughly, legally and scientifically proven that this measure is
completely safe, effective and compliant with international norms. Studies
should be carried out on aerial spraying itself, with social and economic
drug-considerations, but not to the exclusion of other important factors
such as humanitarian, health, environmental impacts, Human Rights and IHL,
as well as the impact of fumigation on Colombia’s future trade potential.
Colombia should safeguard its own national legitimate interests in an
environmentally-oriented world by promoting sustainable eradication
formulas within a framework of international co-responsibility and its
right to the nonintervention of other states in its sovereign right to
protect and make decent and sustainable use of its natural and human
resources for the benefit of all of Humanity.



In consideration of all of the above mentioned, and further substantial
arguments, we hereby request that the Honorable Secretary Ban Ki-moon
mediate with President Juan Manuel Santos so that the Colombian government
might respect existing legislation and, in compliance with the
Precautionary Principle, the Convention on Biological Diversity, The
Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety, the 1972 Stockholm Declaration and 1992
Rio Declaration on Human and Sustainable Development, refrain from
continuing to fumigate the Colombian people, until studies are carried out
and alternative measures are designed and developed so that eradication may
be carried out in a manner that respects their Human Rights. We the
undersigned expect that the national and international backing received and
the positioning of international bodies in favor of our plea may be given
the consideration they deserve on the part of those charged with overseeing
compliance to international norms and that they call the Colombian
government’s attention to repercussions for the Peace Tables to End the
Conflict and the humanitarian implications of spraying defoliants on the
defenseless civilian population which it has vowed to protect.



Sincerely,



Copies to:



·         President Juan Manuel Santos



·         President Barack Obama



·         United Nations Environmental Programme / Law and Conventions -DELC



·         UN Refugee Agency (ACNUR) Colombia: Calle 113 #7-21 Torre A of.
6001 Bta.



·         Haute Représentante de l'Union pour les affaires étrangères et la
politique de sécurité/vice-présidente de la Commission / Catherine Ashton



·         World Health Organization (WHO)



·         Pan-American Health Organization (PAHO) Teofilo Monteiro Cra 7
#74-21 p.9



·         UNODC Representative for Colombia /Bo Mathiasen



·         International Court of Justice/ The Hague



·         Inter-American Court of Human Rights



·         Union of South American Nations (UNASUR)



·         UNESCO United Nations Scientific, Educational and Cultural
Organization



·         Human Rights –Ombudsman Colombia/Jorge Armando Otálora



·         First Commission of the Col0mbian Chamber of Representatives
/German Navas Talero



·         Congreso de Colombia / Juan Manuel Galán



·         Dialogue Tables to Promote a Peaceful End to the Conflict in
Colombia



·         United States Congress /Congressman James McGovern (D –MA)



·         Ministry of Health and Social Protection /Alejandro Gaviria



·         Ministry of Justice and Law / Ruth Stella Correa



·         Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development /Juan Camilo
Restrepo



·         Ministry of Foreign Affairs /María Ángela Holguín



·         Ministry of the Interior /Fernando Carrillo Flórez



·         Ministry of Commerce, Industry and Turism /Sergio Diazgranados



·         Norwegian Agency for Development and Cooperation (NORAD)



·         Gesellschaft für Internationale Zusammenarbeit (GIZ)/Daniel
Brombacher



·         Comité international de la Croix- Rouge / Jordi Curó Raich



·         Inter-American Drug Abuse Control Commission (CICAD) / Javier
Sagredo



·         Keith Solomon -University of Guelph Canada



[1]
http://treaties.un.org/Pages/ViewDetailsIII.aspx?src=TREATY&mtdsg_no=XXIII~1&chapter=23&Temp=mtdsg3&lang=en



[2] http://www.corteconstitucional.gov.co/relatoria/1994/C-176-94.htm



[3]
http://www.mamacoca.org/docs_de_base/Fumigas/Actas_Congreso_de_la_Republica/Sesion_Cultivos_Ilicitos.htm



[4] Jeremy Bigwood: Toxic Drift,  Mosanto and the Drug War in Colombia,
http://www.corpwatch.org/article.php?id=669



[5] Alexander Rincón, Giorgos Kallis: The Distributive effects of aerial
spraying policy in Colombia: Reduction of coca crops and socio-ecological
impacts in vulnerable communities:
http://www.isee2012.org/anais/pdf/1133.pdf



[6]
http://www.ohchr.org/EN/NewsEvents/Pages/DisplayNews.aspx?NewsID=2304&LangID=E



[7]
http://www.unodc.org/documents/crop-monitoring/Colombia/Colombia_Coca_cultivation_survey_2011.pdf



[8]
http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:C:2001:187E:0164:0165:EN:PDF



[9]
http://www.mamacoca.org/docs_de_base/Documentacion_cronologica_de_las_fumigaciones_en_Colombia_1978-2012.html



[10]
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1650884/pdf/amjph00642-0064.pdf



[11] http://www.unodc.org/pdf/document_1996-03-01_2.pdf



[12]
http://www.mamacoca.org/docs_de_base/Fumigas/CIA-FOIA_The%20Narcotics%20Monitor_15julio%201997.pdf



[13]“The latest decision of the Colombian government to adopt Imazapyr as
the only granular herbicide for testing was one more indication that the
Colombians did the minimum, often dragged their feet and appeared, at least
to the U.S.G., no to be cooperative.”
http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB69/col36.pdf



[14] 18001-23-31-000-1999-00397-01(22219)



[15] “..with glyphosate concentrations 26 times higher than those normally
recommended is being applied through aerial spraying— acute toxic effects
of contact as well as glyphosate's penetration and systemic action might be
dramatically increased”.
http://www.mamacoca.org/feb2002/art_nivia_fumigaciones_si_son_peligrosas_en.html



[16]
http://www.elespectador.com/impreso/temadeldia/articulo-370286-el-glifosato-chino-de-policia



[17] Audrey Liounis and Murray Cox : Silk for Cocaine and the Use of
Herbicides in Colombia
http://www.mamacoca.org/docs_de_base/Cifras_cuadro_mamacoca/Audrey_Liounis_and_Murray_Cox_Silk_for_cocaine_and_the_use_of_herbicides_in_Colombia_1992.html



US Department of Agriculture: Glyphosate: a once-in-a-century herbicide
“Glyphosate is less acutely toxic than common chemicals such as sodium
chloride or aspirin...”  http://naldc.nal.usda.gov/download/17918/PDF 2007
Coincidentally, aspirin is said to cause 4 times more overdoses than any
other legal or illegal drug on the market.



[18] Juan Carlos Rincón: Línea jurisprudencial sobre la consulta previa a
comunidades indígenas en Colombia
http://jkrincon.com/2010/09/02/linea-jurisprudencial-sobre-la-consula-previa-a-comunidades-indigenas-en-colombia/SU-383
de 2003, Sentencia T-376/12 and other.



[19] “When these risks are compared to other risks associated with the
clearing of land, the uncontrolled and unmonitored risks of use of other
pesticides to protect the coca and poppy, and exposure to substances used
in the  refining of  the raw product into cocaine and heroin, they are
essentially negligible.”
http://www.cicad.oas.org/en/glifosatefinalreport.pdf



[20]
http://www.greenpeace.org/international/Global/international/publications/agriculture/2011/363%20-%20GlyphoReportDEF-LR.pdf



[21] http://www.gene.ch/genet/2003/Jul/msg00072.html



[22] http://www.gmwatch.org/latest-listing/1-news-items/14040



[23]
http://bibmed.ucla.edu.ve/DB/bmucla/edocs/textocompleto/TWL101DV4R46f2009.pdf



[24]
http://www.nasaacin.org/attachments/article/5059/Acción%20Urgente_Fumigaciones_Comunidad_Novita_Chocó.pdf<http://www.nasaacin.org/attachments/article/5059/Acci%C3%B3n%20Urgente_Fumigaciones_Comunidad_Novita_Choc%C3%B3.pdf>



[25]
http://www.mamacoca.org/docs_de_base/Fumigas/Recomendaciones_Comite_de_Expertos_Herbicidas_1984_Lacera1995.pdf



[26]
http://www.mamacoca.org/docs_de_base/Fumigas/Carta_al_cne_del_inderena_junio_18_1978.html



[27] http://www.mamacoca.org/junio2001/defensoria_al_dia.htm



/
http://www.rds.org.co/aa/img_upload/4511420d3e057b82d476661a73bb159c/fumigacionesputu.doc



“La fumigación aérea presenta muchos riesgos para el ambiente y para la
salud humana »
http://defensoria.org.co/pdf/resoluciones/defensorial/defensorial11.pdf



http://www.mamacoca.org/junio2001/carta_defensoria_suspension_fumigaciones.htm



The Aerial Eradication Strategy form a Cnsitutional Perspective:
http://www.defensoria.org.co/pdf/informes/informe_92.pdf



[28] UNODC Colombia Coca Cultivation Surveys



[29] http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19672767



[30] http://www.cicad.oas.org/en/glifosatefinalreport.pdf



[31] http://bogota.usembassy.gov/pr_56_030909.html



[32] http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19672761



[33] http://www.ars.usda.gov/research/projects/projects.htm?accn_no=416471



[34] Betsy March Going to Extremes, LAWG:
http://www.internal-displacement.org/8025708F004CE90B/(httpDocuments)/C53E09CDB47BDF9BC12571480039EA14/$file/Going2ExtremesFinal.pdf



[35]
http://www.mamacoca.org/docs_de_base/Fumigas/03%20Drug%20Business%20and%20Society.pdfTaken
from:
http://www.isn.ethz.ch/



[36] idem.



[37] All of Us Guinea-Pigs Now?
http://www.criigen.org/SiteEn/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=372&Itemid=130



[38] ..”so as not to give the narcos and the guerrillas, who had inspired
the peasant demonstrations, the belief that by arranging demonstrations
they could stop or even slow down the drug eradication program.”
http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB69/col36.pdf



[39]
http://www.cicad.oas.org/Fortalecimiento_Institucional/ESP/Leyes%20para%20el%202007/COResolucion_017_01.pdf



[40] http://www.minagricultura.gov.co/archivos/informe_final_estudio.pdf



[41]
http://www.mamacoca.org/Imagenes/ANIF_Cuadro_produccion_comercio_marihuana_Colombia_1980.bmp



[42]
http://www.mamacoca.org/docs_de_base/Legislacion_tematica/Estatuto_de_Drogas-Pproyecto_de_ley_no_2012_.html



[43]
http://www.mamacoca.org/docs_de_base/Consumo/Invima_ordena_recoger_coca_sana_2.doc



[44]
http://www.mamacoca.org/docs_de_base/Legislacion_tematica/Estatuto_de_Drogas-Proyecto_de_ley_no_2012_.html/
Consulted in November 2012 at:
http://www.eltiempo.com/justicia/ARCHIVO/ARCHIVO-12250125-0.pdf
------------ próxima parte ------------
Se ha borrado un adjunto en formato HTML...
URL: <https://lists.aktivix.org/pipermail/unloquer/attachments/20130125/a6e61bb8/attachment-0001.html>
------------ próxima parte ------------
_______________________________________________
Note: This email is from the Latin American Studies Association section on Ethnicity, Race, and Indigenous Peoples (ERIP), http://www.ethnicityrace.org/. If you do not want to continue receiving ERIP emails, send a message to erip-request en ethnicityrace.org?subject=unsubscribe.


Más información sobre la lista de distribución unloquer